Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom vs. The Teapot Tapes, in reply to Pete Sime,
If Kim Dotcom brought a private prosecution against the GCSB, is it conceivable that he obtain a search order under the High Court Rules?
The High Court rules apply to civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings.
It used to be possible to obtain a (criminal) search warrant, which would force the police to conduct a search, but the Search and Surveillance Act came into force today, and it no longer is. Under the High Court Rules, the (Acting) Prime Minister's certificate will stop too many questions being asked/answered.
In relation to the suggestion that the GCSB could be charged, I encourage you to read my latest post: http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/dotcom-spying-crown-criminal-liability/
-
How would you do this without being political?
You'd complain to police, and send out a media advisory:
The Green Party considers that allegations of illegal spying are very serious. Today, we have written to Police asking them to commence a criminal investigation.
This is a serious matter, so we will not be commenting further on the question of criminal charges while Police are investigating.
Someone else - perhaps me - would have made the teapot link for them. And they could have focused on issues about which they can actually have an influence: political oversight of our intelligence agencies, and possible law changes, for example.
-
Re: PM not attending House today - basically never do on Thursdays. Clark before him too.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to Idiot Savant,
So, is this actually going to be part of Neazor’s inquiry? Or is the wider problem going to be quietly swept under the rug?
I'd have thought it was an IPCA matter. Or simply a matter that can be properly dealt with by Justice Winkelmann along with the various other matters she is considering.
-
I have a new post, which answers a couple of question people have asked in the comments:
http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/kim-dotcom-questions-and-answers/
-
Meant to have this yesterday, but it took longer than I hoped!
-
Hard News: Media3: Standards Showdown, in reply to Tom Beard,
couched in technical terms that look like plain English but have different or nuanced official meanings (e.g. "earthquake-prone", "no more than minor").
I've had judicial decisions complaining about this. There's basically a judicial direction (not often followed, unfortunately) that psychologists should not use the phrase "mild intellectual disability".
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom and the GCSB, in reply to Ds,
BUT isn’t this signing an illegal warrant, as Dotcom was a resident.
How does that help in retrospect?There is no warrant. It doesn't help legalise things in retrospect, but it may involve the Government admitting it stuffed up and doing the right thing to try to make it better. Don't we want that?
AND surely Bill might have said to Key, by the way I had to sign an idemniity that could bugger the surplus in 2015
You appear to have an inaccurate impression of the scale of damage awards in such cases in New Zealand.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom and the GCSB, in reply to Sacha,
Buchanan also noted it was extraordinary for the PM to make public that an investigation would be conducted, and speculated that the opposition may have been leaked details they were about to release.
We've known of other ones, so I can't say that that it's that extraordinary.
As I note above, anyone releasing information about this interception, knowing it was illegally detained, is breaking the law.
I am entirely confident that the reason Key announced this was that the Crown Law Office had not long filed a memo with the High Court, a copy of which was given to Kim Dotcom. The opposition wouldn't have leaked it so much as the person whose information was illegally intercepted would have gone on twitter or Campbell Live and announced it.
And even if he hadn't, the media reporting tomorrow's High Court hearing would have let us know after it had come up.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom and the GCSB, in reply to Alec Morgan,
last year hardly a whimper apart from blogs as many government agencies acquired all sorts of major surveilling powers.
That's not really true.